Defense Pacts shouldn't end when you're attacked!

[Peng Qi]

I'm surprised I haven't really seen much discussion on this around here, because this has bothered me since I first had a Defense Pact in Civ4. The current setup with defensive pacts is stupid and not remotely representative of most such real-life agreements; in fact, it prevents any World War I/II scenarios from occurring because allies of the aggressor do not get called. I mean sure, it's called a "defense" pact, but it really seems like there should be the possibility for a WW I/II scenario with some alliance type, even if it would be called something other than "defense pact;" maybe "alliance?"

Plus, let's take a hypothetical situation. I'm in a pact with Russia. Aztecs declare on Russia, so I declare on Aztecs. Defense Pact ends (for some reason). Aztecs bring in France against me, but since Defense Pact is over, the Russians are under no obligation to help. Furthermore, since they're already in a war, all of their "declare war on X" options are red. This is stupid; a Defense Pact should at least remain valid and active for the defensive side in a war so scenarios like this can't happen.

Has this subject already been discussed to death or something? Why haven't I seen anyone bring it up?

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I haven't seen that happen. It's worked fine for me.

 

[Quechua]

What if the Aztecs brought in France against Russia instead of you? Would you like to be forced to declare on a second nation?

I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad idea, but you should consider the other side to this.

 

[Seras]

I mean sure, it's called a "defense" pact, but it really seems like there should be the possibility for a WW I/II scenario with some alliance type, even if it would be called something other than "defense pact;" maybe "alliance?"

that's what Permanent Alliances are for actually

Plus, let's take a hypothetical situation. I'm in a pact with Russia. Aztecs declare on Russia, so I declare on Aztecs. Defense Pact ends (for some reason).

the reason is that you declared war. declaring war is what cancels out the defensive pact. whilt it seems strange that the pact triggers it's own cancellation, it's exactly what the pact is for...it's not an on-going alliance, it's simply a promise to another civ that if they are attacked you will immediately declare war on their agressors and help them out. that's it.

maybe you think it's stupid. i feel it works fine as is.

and like i mentioned previously....if you want a more entrenched alliances, the option is there.

 

[Peng Qi]

What if the Aztecs brought in France against Russia instead of you? Would you like to be forced to declare on a second nation?

Yes. It would make for a more interesting game situation.

that's what Permanent Alliances are for actually

I could accept that if it were possible to forge permanent alliances with more than a single person.

it's not an on-going alliance, it's simply a promise to another civ that if they are attacked you will immediately declare war on their agressors and help them out. that's it.

Then an on-going alliance option needs to be added.

and like i mentioned previously....if you want a more entrenched alliances, the option is there.

No, that option is for "more entrenched alliance," singular.

 

[Seras]

do you really need that much help with your wars? lol

 

[jimbob27]

that's what Permanent Alliances are for actually

When you sign a PA, you automatically share techs with the other civ, and your victory conditions are combined (eg, you only need one spaceship between the two). Completely different from what Peng Qi is asking for.

I don't really think that the pact should make countries join if they're on the side of the aggressive nation..... however I definitely agree about the pacts not getting cancelled thing. It seems stupid that once a pact is activated, that it's cancelled for any further nations joining the war effort.

As far as the pact not working for the attacking nation.... I think that a simple "shall we declare war on civ X" option should be available. It seems a bit more realistic........ like the current Iraq war....America asked around, some of their allied joined in, however some of their allied didn't want anything to do with it, and weren't forced to join.

 

[KMadCandy]

Plus, let's take a hypothetical situation. I'm in a pact with Russia. Aztecs declare on Russia, so I declare on Aztecs. Defense Pact ends (for some reason). Aztecs bring in France against me, but since Defense Pact is over, the Russians are under no obligation to help. Furthermore, since they're already in a war, all of their "declare war on X" options are red. This is stupid; a Defense Pact should at least remain valid and active for the defensive side in a war so scenarios like this can't happen.

Seras explained why the DP ended. i don't have a problem with the way that it is, in your example i certainly would have enough on my hands if i was Russia.

i can kind of see wanting something that's not a PA and doesn't require sharing techs but is a stronger military agreement than a DP. but i'm not even sure what you're asking for. i'm totally confused about your "at least remain valid and active for the defensive side in a war".

how does a DP being active only for one side make any sense or benefit the other side in any way?

and which is "the defensive side"? in your example, you and Russia had the DP, Russia was declared on. so you jumped in like you were supposed to, you were faithful to the pact. seems to me you were on the helper side, Russia was on the defensive side. France later declared on you, but if the DP's still active only for Russia then they don't have to defend you so the way i'm reading it your idea wouldn't have changed anything. i know i must be reading it wrong.

 

[Peng Qi]

do you really need that much help with your wars? lol

LOLZORPWNDHAXLOLOL!!!11
Actually, one of the things I find most entertaining in strategy games is playing "big brother" for smaller nations and protecting them from aggressors.

Seras explained why the DP ended.

I know the mechanics of why it ended, I just think it's stupid that it does.

how does a DP being active only for one side make any sense or benefit the other side in any way?

Well, in my example, I would consider myself and Russia to be the "defensive side" and the Aztecs and French the "offensive side." Most alliance wars in real life usually read more like:
Germany, Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary vs. Russia, France, Britain, and Serbia.

Not:
Serbia vs. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire
Russia vs. Austria-Hungary
France vs. Austria-Hungary
Britain vs. Austria-Hungary

...which is what World War I would have looked like under Civ mechanics.

I also wish you could make a "collective peace" wherein you can also negotiate peace for your allies if you were the initial aggressor in a war which you brought in allies for or the one who was initially attacked in the case of a defense pact. Just like UN and AP resolutions, they could deny negotiated terms and keep fighting, but then they'd be in it alone.

 

[KMadCandy]

Actually, one of the things I find most entertaining in strategy games is playing "big brother" for smaller nations and protecting them from aggressors.

come play with me, some games i need you! i never sign DPs with civs that have enemies, since i never ever want to have to actually go defend them. i just want the protection in case of emergency!

I know the mechanics of why it ended, I just think it's stupid that it does.
Well, in my example, I would consider myself and Russia to be the "defensive side" and the Aztecs and French the "offensive side." Most alliance wars in real life usually read more like:...

oh i see!

kind of related to that, there's change i know they'll never make but i really would love. if i'm in a DP with cathy, and then monty declares war on cathy, i wish the game mechanic was that monty would really consider the DP first and that he'd have to declare on us both rather than me doing that auto-declare thing. that's just for PAs tho. i really hate collecting those -1 DoWd our friend and -3 DoWd us penalties. that's a big part of why i don't sign 'em with folks i think have any chance at all of needing them *giggle*.

 

[Quintillus]

That's a good point, it would be better if Montezuma had to DoW both of you. Hopefully Firaxis will see this and consider it for the next patch .

Peng Qi makes a good point, and the Great War is a good example of his point. From a military and diplomatic perspective I must agree, it makes perfect sense that the Defensive Pact should continue until they expire regardless of how many civs attack the two civs with a defensive pact.

But if you've ever played a Civilization III game that was competitive into the Industrial Age, you'll know how chaotic that can make things. Post-nationalism CivIII wars go like this:

Civ A declares war on Civ B. Civ B has Mutual Protection Pacts with Civ C and Civ D, so they declare war on Civ A. Civ C moves units into Civ A's territory, and Civ A's mutual-protection-pact allies Civ E and Civ F declare war on Civ C. Civ C signs an alliance with Civ G against Civ E. Civ C moves units into Civ F's territory. Civ F has a MPP with Civ G, so Civ G declares war on Civ C. Civ G is now at war with both Civ F and Civ C. Civ G signs an alliance against Civ A against Civ F. Civ F attacks Civ A, and thus Civ E declares war on Civ A. Civ G then signs an alliance with Civ B against Civ C. Civ C attacks Civ B, which causes Civ D to declare war on Civ C.

Don't feel bad if you didn't follow on that. I actually messed up while writing that, and it took about 5 minutes to make sure I had everything straight in there. And I still can't be entirely sure without mapping it out on paper.

But the point is, you could, and did, get some bloody confusing wars in Civ III in the post-Nationalism age due to Mutual Protection Pacts not ending at the end of wars. It was great fun having the entire world descend into chaotic war, but you had to admit, it was even crazier than what you could imagine in the real world. I think that's why they changed it in Civ4 - they didn't want the whole world descending into madness and chaos after Defensive Pacts became available.

True, ideally Defensive Pacts wouldn't expire after one war, and everything would work like the Great War example. But the fact is, the AI's don't act like real-world countries, and I'm sure we'd get the exact same chaos we get in Civ III. Though that is quite fun at times, as well.

 

[MrCynical]

Those of use who remember Civ 3 know exactly why defensive pacts are set up like this. They meant that as soon as you made one it was practically inevitable to end up getting dragged into all kinds of chaotic wars. The AIs would make enough pacts that the pact members would be forced to attack each other, making the whole thing downright silly. Civ 4 works a heck of a lot better now. In Civ 3 you either had to never make a defensive pact, or accept ending up at war with all other civ bar one on the planet.

 

[Scaramanga]

Sounds like the OP wants a different feature entirely, like the formation of axes, allies, and blocs. I guess the most suitable elements in the game I can think of facilitating this are common religion (especially under the Apostalic Palace) and favourite civics (when playing against the AI).

 

[Theodorick]

Those of use who remember Civ 3 know exactly why defensive pacts are set up like this. They meant that as soon as you made one it was practically inevitable to end up getting dragged into all kinds of chaotic wars. The AIs would make enough pacts that the pact members would be forced to attack each other, making the whole thing downright silly. Civ 4 works a heck of a lot better now. In Civ 3 you either had to never make a defensive pact, or accept ending up at war with all other civ bar one on the planet.

Haha this still happens in Civ4 when the AI gets really stupid.
A signs a DP with B
B signs a DP with C
C signs a DP with A
A signs a DP with D
C declares war on D
A declares war on C
B declares war on A

Play the game enough and this scenario will probably play out. It's happened twice with me by accident, and once on purpose--I wanted to get a continent against each other, so I used the complex alliances they had to plunge them into a basically forced war. Now if the 'DP isn't canceled' thing were established... then A, B, C, and D, would all end up going to war with each in a single turn, and it would be even more of a complex mess. So it makes sense why they didn't bother with that.

 

[King Flevance]

Yay, tangled diplomacy! I love this stuff.

I still think 4 has a better chance at not devolving into anarchy wars. (Although it would happen probably 1:10 games.) But the AI on Civ 4 has modifiers that could really aid in this. Civ 3's AI's modifiers were fickle. Here is what I see as reasons why this may not descend into choas in 4.

Anything in red is a something I corrected in the quote.

Civ A declares war on Civ B. Civ B has Mutual Protection Pacts with Civ C and Civ D, so they declare war on Civ A.

I rarely see a computer declare war on a 3 party defensive pact in 4. (Just saying...)

Civ C moves units into Civ A's territory, and Civ A's mutual-protection-pact allies Civ E and Civ F declare war on Civ C.

So now everyone at war is:
A vs. B, C, and D.
and
C vs. A, E, and F
This MUST be effective for 10 turns I believe. Poor G is just chillin'.
Until:

Civ C signs an alliance with Civ G against Civ E.

Bribery. (Read the next entry)

Civ C moves units into Civ F's territory. Civ F has a MPP with Civ G, so Civ G declares war on Civ C.

If F and G have a MPP, its very possible in 4 that G and E get along. Because F and E had a MPP as well. (I realise this is not always the case but in 4 the AI does a decent job at buddying up to a specific group. SOme games this bribery scenario would actually work though.)

Civ G is now at war with both Civ E and Civ C.

Suggested Rule: The rule should change to declaring war on someone should cancel your defensive agreements. Why would you protect someone you are at war with? Heck it should be like this in 3 also.

Civ G signs an alliance with Civ A against Civ E.

Here we have someone that was in a mutual protection pact (A & E) at war with one another over bribery. Prior to which they have no reason to not be at high pleased to friendly. Plus they would still have the +4 or whatever from having a MPP, (An impossible bribe in my experience as the game rules stand.)

Civ E attacks Civ A, and thus Civ F declares war on Civ E.

And by the suggested rule above: E now has no allies. And A & F are on a team as well as F and G.

Civ G then signs an alliance with Civ B against Civ C. Civ C attacks Civ B, which causes Civ D to declare war on Civ C.

Again G bribes a teammate to declare war on one of their teammates. B and C should have very high relations and it would be a difficult and expensive bribe at best. But we will give it the benefit of the doubt, and somehow say they get it off as it is possible to do this in some game although few.

So according to the suggested rule: B & C are now no longer in a defensive pact. And C is left in the cold with no teammate.

War update:____________________________Peace with_________MPP
A vs. B, C, D, E.............................................F, G.....................E, F
B vs. A, C, D, E.............................................F, G.....................C, D
C vs. A, B, D, E, F, G................................................................B
D vs. A, B, C, E, F...........................................G.......................B
E vs. A, B, C, D, F, G.................................................................A
F vs. B, C, D, E..............................................A, G....................A, G
G vs. C, E..................................................A, B, D, F................F

Under the suggested rule, all of the alliances marked in Blue are the only ones still in effect.


NOw some of this I really dont see happening. You have people that have had mutual protection pacts being able to be bribed, which in my experience isnt very common in Civ 4. Additionally, in Civ 4, the computer opponents would be making peace with one another real fast with a world war like this going on.Usually once a computer has 2-3 opponents they are trying to get to the 10 turn limit and make peace with at least 1 or 2. C and E are against everybody in this example with no teamates in the suggested rule variant. SO they would be suing for peace in a flash. As well as probably getting dogpiled and be out of the game fairly fast.

I wish there were more wars like this on 4. I love this stuff. Like A, and C fighting over D's city, and then fighting one another over who gets to keep it. Good stuff. I gotta agree with Peng though. I think it would be interesting to have defensive pacts run deeper.

What if the Aztecs brought in France against Russia instead of you? Would you like to be forced to declare on a second nation?

That doesnt mean you have to send aid. Even the computer knows that.

 

[cairo140]

To the OP, you know that by changing just one line, you can have as many permanent alliances as you wish?

 

[Peng Qi]

But the point is, you could, and did, get some bloody confusing wars in Civ III in the post-Nationalism age due to Mutual Protection Pacts not ending at the end of wars. It was great fun having the entire world descend into chaotic war, but you had to admit, it was even crazier than what you could imagine in the real world. I think that's why they changed it in Civ4 - they didn't want the whole world descending into madness and chaos after Defensive Pacts became available.

But in World War I and II, the whole world did dissolve into madness and chaos. There is almost no country that existed at the time of World War II that was not at war; even minor countries in latin America jumped in near the end.

Besides, world wars were my favorite part of Civ3.

EDIT: No, I didn't know you could change how many PAs you can have. Can you also make it so they don't have any effects other than causing you to be treated as one entity for the purposes of war?

 

[Seras]

you could also just remove the "declaring war cancels out defensive pact" trigger

that would probably get the closest result to what you desire

 

[Peng Qi]

you could also just remove the "declaring war cancels out defensive pact" trigger

that would probably get the closest result to what you desire

I don't know how to do that.

 

[Soneji]

I've been attacked before (me being non aggressor) and my DP has been dropped that second.... like eh what?